Originally Posted by OBW
I will concede that Nee's definition is not entirely the same. But it is more the same than you seem to see. You quoted some of Nee's words that evidence it to me.
The only sense in which denominations are not scriptural is that they are not spoken of in scripture.
3For ye are yet carnal: for whereas there is among you envying, and strife, and divisions, are ye not carnal, and walk as men?
4For while one saith, I am of Paul; and another, I am of Apollos; are ye not carnal
I think 1 Cor 3:3-4 is speaking of denominations. You might not think so, still to say that there is no discussion of denominations in Scripture is certainly not an agreed on point.
But neither is the internet.
I disagree. Matt 24:27 For as the lightning cometh out of the east, and shineth even unto the west; so shall also the coming of the Son of man be
This prophecy of the end of the age says that communication around the world will be at the speed of light, this includes all telecommunications. Then in Revelation 13:14 And deceiveth them that dwell on the earth by the means of those miracles which he had power to do in the sight of the beast; saying to them that dwell on the earth, that they should make an image to the beast, which had the wound by a sword, and did live.
15And he had power to give life unto the image of the beast, that the image of the beast should both speak, and cause that as many as would not worship the image of the beast should be killed.
By definition an image that speaks is a "talking picture". The fact that this image can determine who is worshipping and who isn't suggest that it has an intelligence similar to a computer. For John to describe this as "having life" is also an apt description of an internet TV. Internet TV's have just started being sold. I don't think anyone can unequivocally say that this prophecy does not refer to something similar to an internet TV. So even if you don't think it does refer to the internet, to patently say that it doesn't is again a matter of dispute. Finally some consider "the Beast" to be a supercomputer. Again, I think it is an interpretation that has merit and cannot be unequivocally rejected. To say that a "smart phone" or a "smart TV" is an image of a supercomputer that has both life and intellect is probably the best way to describe the current technology to people 2,000 years ago.
The real problem is not in the banding together, but in the dividing. And Nee does rightly say that when I speak to point out the differences, then I am the one making separation.
But when Nee said that denominations are not scriptural, he meant that they are simply incorrect. He is only one step removed from the ones he chastises. How do you claim to not point out who is and is not denominational yet say that being denominational is against scripture. To step back and then say that you should not care about it is a kind of false humility that masks a position. Nee's position is one thing. He just doesn't fight you about it.
This is a good question and there is certainly one possible answer. Consider Matthew 7:1-6. Verse 1 says judge not lest ye be judged. Then he talks about taking the beam out of your own eye before removing the splinter from your brother's eye. And then we have verse 6 "Give not that which is holy unto the dogs, neither cast your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet and turn again and rend you." Now I feel that the words "dogs" and "swine" do not actually refer to animals you would see on a farm, but rather to people. That of course is my understanding, and you are free to disagree. But once you consider that Jesus was referring to people how could I discern who a "dog" or a "pig" was without judging? So Matt 7 creates the same conundrum that you have with WN. But the answer is very simple. Jesus never said "do not judge anyone". He said "Judge not, lest you be judged". This prohibits me from judging others but I am still free to judge myself. So I am free to judge myself if I am sectarian or divisive, but with others I should be general. And no, I don't think that is false humility.
In the same way, he believes that any meeting who are not open to any Christian in any way are being divisive. And his own group would seem to be a model of this. But what if some come among the Little Flock that hold to infant baptism? Who would not remain silent about it? Who even push it? There eventually will be a position taken by the group to either silence them or send them on their way.
And that is the way it should be. But because of that, even the Little Flock is sectarian. It does hold to certain doctrines. But it speaks as if it does not and that others are incorrect for doing so.
That is the problem.
And you are correct to point out that Lee makes a much bigger deal about it all. But the underlying definitions are the same.
|